Allowed

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023A483/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Allahabad, allowed an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, to expedite disposal of a cheque dishonour case filed under Section 138 N.I. Act by fixing short dates and avoiding unnecessary adjournments in accordance with Section 143 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj to expeditiously conclude the complaint case by fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 58 of 2023 Applicant :- Kanhaiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶4

The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the court concerned to decide the Complaint Case No. 2383 of 2019 (Kanhaiya vs. Ashok Maurya) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Ghughuli, District Maharajganj pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj expeditiously.

¶5

Pleadings of the case indicate that the applicant has filed complaint case on 14.06.2019. On 15.06.2019, the trial court has taken cognizance and the case was registered as Complaint Case No. 2383 of 2019 and date was fixed for 13.08.2019 for statement of complainant under Section 200 CrPC. The trial court vide order dated 05.12.2019 has summoned the opposite party no. 2 to face the trial under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. On several occasions opposite party no. 2 did not turn up, therefore, on 05.02.2020 non-bailable warrant was issued against him. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and on being moved application for bail, he was released on bail on 11.02.2020. Thereafter the proceedings were stalled due to Covid-19 pandemic. On 25.11.2021 the proceedings of the case resumed and 06.05.2022 was fixed for evidence.

¶6

It is submitted that the proceedings of the complaint case was initiated on 14.06.2019. It is also submitted that several dates have been fixed since 14.06.2019 but no order has been passed.

¶7

Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, issue of notice to opposite party No. 2 is being dispensed with inasmuch as rights of parties are not being determined here in any manner.

¶8

It appears that the trial of the case is not progressing with the speed as mandated by Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proceedings under Section 138 N.I.

¶9

Act are summary remedy in aid of commercial transactions. The purpose of the remedy is to provide expeditious realization of the proceeds of a cheque that is dishonored. In its nature, it ought to be dealt with swiftly. The court should be vigilant to preclude adjournment of the case on flimsy grounds.

¶10

The provisions of Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for expeditious disposal of case which are as follows :

¶11

Power of Court to try cases summarily-

¶12

(2) The trial of a case under this section shall, so far as practicable, consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing.

¶13

(3) Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶14

The Apex Court in "Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881" Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 02 of 2020 has issued guidelines to the Magistrate for expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid provisions of Section 143 (2) and (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the guidelines of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj is directed to expeditiously conclude the aforesaid complaint case by fixing short dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, unless it is inevitable and that too, with heavy costs.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid directions, the application is allowed.

¶17

It is made clear that anything said in this order shall not affect the rights of both parties either way and the Trial Court shall be free to decide the complaint in accordance with law and the evidence led by parties unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.2.2023

¶19

Pratima

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shweta Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another